The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

i dont know about his family roots but yes my friend Huns are one of Turkic Nations.

theres a lot of Turkic Nations which were the deadliest enemys to eachother in history.

"Ever since Joseph de Guignes in the 18th century identified the Huns with the Xiongnu or (H)siung-nu,[5] there has been a school of thought that the Huns were of Turkic origin. This theory is also supported by O. Maenchen-Helfen, on the basis of his linguistic studies.[6][7] English scholar Peter Heather, also called the Huns "the first group of Turkic, as opposed to Iranian, nomads to have intruded into Europe".[8] Kemal Cemal, a Turkish researcher,[9] points to linguistic evidence; compares Turkic and Hunnic words, names and shows the similarities between them. He also compares systems of governance of the Huns to that of other Turkic tribes, and demonstrates how similar they are. Others who support this view include Hungarian historian Gyula Nemeth in his 1991 book Hungary."

Last edited by Big K; 17 May 07, at 09:47.

Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.

No, definitely not. There is some argument that Hunnish was a 'Turkic' language. Others only categorize it as belonging in the broader Altaic languages, which includes the Turkic languages. Note that in spite of the similarity 'Turkish' and 'Turkic' are not the same thing, 'Turkic' being a much broader term. The closest analogy that comes to mind is the difference between 'Slavic' and 'Russian'. So Russians are Slavs but all not all Slavs are Russian. In the same way Huns might have been Turkic (then again, perhaps they weren't even Turkic but only part of an even broader linguistic grouping that included Turkic) but they were definitely not Turkish.